Do gamers expect too much from their PCs?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Today Steve and Tim discuss whether gamers in 2023 are too demanding when it comes to pc gaming and the performance they expect to get out of their system.
Join us on Patreon: / hardwareunboxed
Join us on Floatplane: www.floatplane....
Buy relevant products from Amazon, Newegg and others below:
Radeon RX 7900 XTX - geni.us/OKTo
Radeon RX 7900 XT - geni.us/iMi32
GeForce RTX 4090 - geni.us/puJry
GeForce RTX 4080 - geni.us/wpg4zl
GeForce RTX 4070 Ti - geni.us/AVijBg
GeForce RTX 3050 - geni.us/fF9YeC
GeForce RTX 3060 - geni.us/MQT2VG
GeForce RTX 3060 Ti - geni.us/yqtTGn3
GeForce RTX 3070 - geni.us/Kfso1
GeForce RTX 3080 - geni.us/7xgj
GeForce RTX 3090 - geni.us/R8gg
Radeon RX 6500 XT - geni.us/dym2r
Radeon RX 6600 - geni.us/cCrY
Radeon RX 6600 XT - geni.us/aPMwG
Radeon RX 6700 XT - geni.us/3b7PJub
Radeon RX 6800 - geni.us/Ps1fpex
Radeon RX 6800 XT - geni.us/yxrJUJm
Radeon RX 6900 XT - geni.us/5baeGU
Are gamers too demanding when it comes to PC performance?
Disclaimer: Any pricing information shown or mentioned in this video was accurate at the time of video production, and may have since changed
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. We may also earn a commission on some sales made through other store links
FOLLOW US IN THESE PLACES FOR UPDATES
Twitter - / hardwareunboxed
Facebook - / hardwareunboxed
Instagram - / hardwareunb. .
Music By: / lakeyinspiredg. .
the problem for me is that the games where my xtx gets the 50-70 fps don't look any better then games that can max out my monitors refresh rate or often even look worse. all the increased system requierements with nothing to show for it.
So true. TW3(2015) looks better than Starfield(2023).
So, expecting current gen hardware to smoothly run current gen games is too high of an expectation now?
its more that people expect their midrange hardware to run nextgen games at high resolution, high framerate and settings AND without upscaling
Or maybe it's developers who expect too much from gamers? Such as Bethesda expecting gamers to pay $70 for the half-baked, unoptimized, and frankly visually unimpressive product that is Starfield.
They managed well. It sold rather well!
Still carbage quality, but it did sell really well even the price is $70…
😂
@@haukionkannel That's because people mistakenly put their faith in the notion that Bethesda had learned anything from their failures with Fallout 4. To many, an entirely new IP and universe inspired optimism that this would see Bethesda course-correct and usher in a return to greatness. Now we have all seen that if anything, Bethesda has gotten significantly *worse* and somehow *lazier* since Fallout 4.
I highly doubt that TES6 will be an outright failure and if it is then my faith in the gaming community will have been restored, but I do think that many will be skeptical of the game's quality after suffering through the quagmire that is Starfield. I predict that many will likely await reviews before purchasing. If TES6 is as abysmal as Starfield, Fallout 5 will be a complete and utter disaster.
It's the same with Forza Motorsport 8. Turn 10 and Bethesda both belong to Microsoft.
@@haukionkanneldid it tho? Metscritic user score of 6.6 with inflated Xbox pass game ownership and all the negative prerelease reviews on steam removed. In reality, looking at the REAL numbers, it hasn't done well.
I completely understand that when it comes to video game preferences, it's different strokes for different folks all day long. I ended up putting almost 180 hours into Starfield and I had a great experience the majority of the time. I didn't look at any review until I was about at the 40-60 hour mark and I can't help but wonder how valid a lot of reviews for games are at this point. Am I the problem 😂? Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of other games I've liked more but I still got a lot out of Starfield and I feel like I got my money's worth. I will agree, though, they could have done better with optimization but I don't know how much better.
My PS4 runs better than any pc today and its games that has become so demanding making them unresponsive. Gaming today feels like running through water. Go play Battlefield 2042 then go back to Battlefield V and Battlefield 1 there will be a clear difference in responsiveness.
drop the copium. my pc ain't even top of the line (5800x3d + rtx 4080) and runs shit easily 3 times better than a ps5.
Remember when Assassin's Creed Unity first came out? High-end GPUs of the time like the GTX 980 couldn't run it maxed out at 1080p 60FPS all the time if I remember right. It was also killer on the 4 core Intel CPUs of the time. Now it's fairly trivial to run it at 4K 120FPS with a 4070 Ti or better
Gamers expect too much from consoles. That's the subject to discuss about. Console gamers expect 4K at 120FPS for $600-$700. Consoles are for budget gamers.
Anything over 100 fps feels much better than 60. I've seen people purchase mid-range GPUs only to stay with the same 60hz monitor. Crazy.
4k gaming is a trap, for me 1080p ultrawide with 144hz+ quality monitor, I have 4k OLED TV where I can stream some game for visual enjoyment but still prefer the monitor.
And here I am being a weirdo who caps my games at 60fps on my 144Hz monitor because I can't see a difference between 60fps and 144fps on the games I play. On the desktop though, the difference is quite noticeable.
Should I play a game on native 1080p high settings or use upscale to play at ultra settings
the price of gpus is also making us expect more from the gpus like cmon low end used to be 80 to 100$ now its 250 to 300$ ish. 300$ used to get you a good mid range gpu but now it barely gets you an entry level gpu...
Back when I started getting into PCs (Around 2012/13) I remember when 1080p30 was considered playable and 1080p60 was considered ideal. I remember JackFrags building a budget PC for like 500£ and saying you can play Crysis 3 at medium settings with 40 FPS and that was considered a GOOD thing!
Back then people were more about Resolution than Refresh rate with 4K60 being considered the "pinnacle" of the 'Master Race' I assume this was because 4K back then was brand new and desirable compared to nowadays where people mainly settle for 1440p as this middle ground for hi-res and performance.
Although I do think that HRR monitors becoming far more affordable in recent years (especially IPS monitors, because back then HRRs ere not just expensive but almost exclusively TN panels)
I think there's another reason why demand for super high frame rates have risen: Consoles.
The PS5 and Series X both allow you to play at 4K120hz respectively at the price of a PC that would barely be able to even reach constant 120 in all games at 1080p. Plus the fact that the XBOX in particular can almost be used as a PC as well makes the current lower end PC market a tough sell. PC gamers mainly want their systems to vastly outperform the consoles while not costing all too much more which currently is just borderline impossible. I personally too think that a game should be running at at least 90FPS at the desired resolution because that provides a safe buffer for 1% lows which should never go under 60 as that's usually also when G-/Freesync stops working.
Consoles cant go 4K120, what are you talking about? Not in a demanding game, PS5 has 30 fps in 4K in God of War. In new Star Wars they upscale image from HD to achieve 60 fps on 4K, and it is notably blurry.
that's not a thing. i have owned pcs as far as the early 90's, and as soon as the 3dfx voodoo2 hit the market, 30 fps was no longer considered good in many genres. and since CRT monitors were highish refresh (i gamed at 85hz back then), 60 wasn't ideal either. specially because it flickered like mad on crts. the minimum refresh you would want is 72hz, and preferably 85+ for a completely flicker free experience. hitting the refresh rate was always desirable.
the only reason you remember 2012/13 being okay with 60fps was because screens of this era were shit. high refresh screens were rare, and most screens were laggy af
I'm the same as Steve (sacrificing visual quality if I have to to get closer to 70-90 fps range or better but I'm also not willing to sacrifice too much if it's not a competitive multiplayer title). 60 fps is by no means bad but when you've come from 60hz to 120hz+ then going back to 60hz or so just feels a little sluggish imo.
my PC Ryzen 2700X and 1080ti hooked up to some older Samsung 4k tv i dont even remember the reason but i decided to play path of exile for like an hour on my significant others predator helios 300 laptop that shit broke me lol 😭now i need to upgrade everything but everything is overpriced these days 🤷♂
but i totally agree once you have seen and felt better it just totally changes your perspective!
I bought my 6700xt for 400 euro and a m28u for 480 euro, I can happily say i am really glad with the performance I get, ofcourse i'm not using ultra settings in the latest games but modern games look so good at medium settings and the higher resolution+textures are the most important part, and older games are really easy to run 4k 144hz nowadays so i cant complain. hopefully I'll buy a 9700xt and a 8k 240hz OLED monitor in the future!
I'd also go for 7800/7900 XT.
that sounds beyond idiotic
@@juanme555 what's idiotic about it?
@@FLAXMS
Everything, you bought a 4k 144hz display, and then you bought a massively underpowered gpu, when you could've just bought a 1080p or 1440p 144hz and better gpu, and 8K??? the very thought of 8k is ridiculous, at the size of your computer desktop monitor, the pixel density will have gone way past diminishing returns, and you still plan to buy another underpowered gpu again.
You remind me of a quokka.
Wow,@@juanme555 , you really think you've got it all figured out, huh? Let me drop some knowledge on you. I started with a 1440p monitor and sent it back because it looked pixelated as hell. That's why I moved to 4K, and trust me, it's another world.
I grabbed the 6700xt 'cause it's got solid performance for the price. Could've gone with a RX 6800 if I stuck to 1440p and saved 200 euros, but that's only like a 25% performance boost. Not game-changing, man.And LOL at your thoughts on 8K being ridiculous. Even at 4K and 28 inches, I can still see pixels if I look closely. In the future, we're gonna laugh at how we ever thought 4K was enough. You clearly lack the imagination to see how tech is gonna evolve. Sure, 8K "retina displays" may not be practical now, but just wait. Performance keeps going up; it's only a matter of time before 8K is just as common as 1080p is today. You're stuck in the now, man, while some of us are looking ahead.
Forza Motorsport and Starfield are both games that are nowhere near looking as good as their performance demands require. Then lets not forget the amount of games releasing completely unplayable at launch.
People are right to demand well made games, not broken spaghetti code where priorities lie in loot box/skins over anything else.
Then there is the costs of high end PCs which in itself further drives home the problem.
I have starfield on gamepass and never launched it, game is a meme right now.
But Forza 2023, I love it! Not saying your experience isn't valid, just from my perspective since the game engine is a locked 60fps outside of career mode offline, as long as it meets 60fps you're good?
I have a 4070ti, not really considered a 4k card, but I only play in 4k and have to make sacrifices sometimes.
4k forza max with DLAA turned on for ultra quality. (Dlss and fsr kind of not working proper for it), everything maxed except shadows on high vs ultra, on a somewhat aged i5 12400 and 16GB of ram, it keeps high 60s and high 70s fps, but is locked at 60fps in multi-player.
To me that's a fine experience, but it is more demanding than the horizon engine which was universally insanely scalable, but forza 2023 looks wonderful to me in motion?
@@doctorsatan4260 eh, starfield is about the same quality as forza. maybe you should try it before labeling it a meme. It's far from perfect, but it's an easy 8 out of 10, just like forza. the biggest issue for these games are salty playstation fanboys review bombing and trying to throw mud for no reason. they are not as bad as people say.
@GraveUypo heh fair enough. I was gonna let starfield slide as I had no experience but wanted to speak my experience on forza. Guess intent is lost in text a bit easy and people can't read my mind.
I have it installed (starfield) and will give it a go once there is patches and I'm between games and room to start a long play.
I hope it's good, I been discouraged by watching streamers at launch since I didn't have early access. But after phantom liberty finished it will be next. Had BG3 during release to block it
5:24 Can anecdotally confirm. Did a budget build aiming for 1080p in Nov '22 and still, even with an RX6600, wouldn't / didn't consider 60hz monitors. The tech is available and affordable these days, 60hz is lowest tier budgety-of-budgetest builds (and that's fine! ^^ shit is pricey these days), 144 refresh is really entry level imo
The jump from 1080p 60 to 75hz on a great monitor was very noticeable to me.
Then I jumped from 1080 75hz to 4k 120/144hz.
With using gsync I am just fine at 90-100fps 4k quality DLSS. I run my monitor at 120hz mode with a few extras enabled, and I tell no difference between 120 and 144 modes, even at sources running at 200+ fps, I see no difference. I really can't tell much difference than that and how I play most games I can't max at 120, which is crank visuals until minimum frame in 80s and 99% is 90+.
Looks great and feels the same to me.
i can tell the difference between 144 and 120, but i still think it's best to use 120. because it divides better into common formats (60 fps, 30 fps, 24fps). 144hz will have worse frame pacing when watching videos.
I'm inclined to agree with Steve. I was perfectly happy with 1080p 60hz until I bought a 1440p 165hz IPS monitor. I can't go back, I refuse, I'll pay what it takes to stay here.
Gaming at 60 hz was a great experance go back a few years playing for ex. skyrim (GPU RX580 8gb amd 3600 cpu) I play at 1080 50-60hz on 60 hz display high setting some issue with shadows
I up grading my display to buget 144hz old dispaly old display gave up the ghost Playing Red Dead Redemption more or less max out visual most of time low FPS 45+ high 50's most of time and look so good it worth not having the extra FPS It was nice
Hove ever I did noticed a diffrence my oh my moment came when I upgrading my CPU amd 5800x3d and GPU RX7900XTX 3440×1440up to 144hz ultrawide
World of diffrence it make the gaming better so yes happy to game at 60hz 1080 but I am getting a better gaming experance on my dell 144hz ultrawide
Best way to put this "IT LIKE THE ICEING ON CAKE" but you can still enjoy cake with iceing
Performance isn't keeping up with prices. That's it, that's the thread.
Also, 4K monitors / TVs are cheap now and have been for almost a decade now. The fact that we can't get a GPU for a home PC that can run 4K60 for less than the price of a game console is just plain weird. 1080p any hertz should not still be acceptable, but gamers are opting for 1080p144 instead of 4K60 because the cost to men get to 4K60 is ludicrous.
I built a new PC in March 23' after 6 years of putting up with an Intel cpu with a GTX1080 and 16gigs ram. I just could not accept all the problems and how they were pushed onto us with sky high pricing and almost zero availability these last few years.
My new PC is an ASUS Tuf X670E, R7700X, 32gigs ram, 2tb Gen4 M.2, RX7900XT mated with a beautiful studio quality sound system. Mild undervolt/OC on both CPU and GPU. Guys this system is the Genie in the Bottle. All wishes have come true. I never expected this much performance from this generation. Yeah, I paid more but who the hell didnt?
EG: Lords of the Fallen on 3440x1440 Q-OLED. Im getting 190 fps on Ultra settings without any form or type of software frame generation or other enhancements. All the latest triple A games out this year I have played. My system eats them all for breakfast.
honestly, its GPU makers can't live up to their own hype. Nvidia introduced RT and it gimped out everyone, including Nvidia.
I found hilarious that 60 is "low". I am sorry but that sounds super entitled. I have a 144hz display and a 120hz OLED Tv with a 3090. I enjoy my high framerate experience. But I have ABSOLUTELY no issues going on a flight and playing Cyberpunk on my deck a 30 fps. I find it very entitled for people to say "This is the lower bar" when we have to agree that 30 fps is playable. Is the best experience? Hell no! I love my 144hhz CoD experience as anybody, but we need to get away from the elitist mentality and really enjoy games for what they are:
Games
This leads me to my question. As I game on a 55" non OLED TV, a LG UQ90 to be precise, and sit around 2m (about 6.5 feet) from my screen, am I better going 1080 120 or 1440 60 or even 4K 60?
What's better? 240 hz WQHD or 144 hz 4k.
Thanks in advance!
Completely agree with you guys, if you own a 4090, it would be criminal to be running it on 60hz monitors.
I think Fortnite Should get more than 100 fps in the end game with a 5800x3d. If expecting a one-year-old flagship to do that is expecting too much, then...
To be fair I do think a lot of it is because gamers got spoiled because the PS4 gen consoles where so weak even when they came out. So it was easy for PC to get much higher fps than those consoles. It was an outlier generation. The new generation consoles are actually well speced. So it's much harder to quadruple their fps. Anyone remember when Xbox 360 came out? The best CPU and GPU combo at the time couldn't come close to the 360.
Also modern games like Starfield, The Last of Us, Jedi Survivor ECT get better performance on modern hardware than games like Rise of the Tomb Raider and Witcher 3 ran on hardware that was available when they came out. And that's comparing the modern games at 1440p and those older games at 1080p.
I think 60fps is completely fine for single player games. I think the DIY PC gamers market is a small percentage of the overall gaming market. Console gamers and the vast majority of PC gamers will pick image quality over fps. If you look at the general gamers talking about settings in console games they almost always take the 30fps quality mode over the 60fps performance mode.
Now for online competitive games fps is much more important. But most of those games are made to be easy to run and get high fps even on low end hardware. Single player games devs have to go for image quality because they will get slammed if their game doesn't look as pretty as other games that recently released.
they absolutely do. they look down on consoles like they're trash, and like their pc that is barely any better has infinite power, and when it doesn't run anything it's because it's badly made, because their infinite power pc surely isn't the problem. it has always been like this, it will always be like this.
Smooth frame rates without odd stutters for $1000-$2000? well, yeah.
This person who asked this question has fell for the marketing/conditioning by nvidia to expect less and like it.
Overhead has become too much. You throw a $1000 GPU at it and games manage to look worse than titles from a few years ago.
I still bought a 4k60 monitor since (1) I have no interest in paying $700+ for a 7900 XT or 4070 Ti to drive 4k144 and then have to buy an expensive cpu too and (2) I also connect a PS5 to my monitor and those games target 4k60 TVs. With Freesync now I'm happy to target 50 fps in the hardest to run games at 1440p with FSR/RSR to 4k on my 6700 XT + i5-12400F system. My PC would become too much of a money pit if I started targeting 4k144. 1440p60 is already expensive enough to render in AAA console ports given how much gpus, motherboards, and power supplies have shot up in price the last 3 years.
Yes they do and thats the problem these days you guy's should know these ungreatful gamers are exactly that set ur expectations lower its not hard ffs
When you consider the new high prices you should expect more 🙄
I think that selling all the mining cards made it that GPUs have things in them that where done to keep them as the best mining cards. Now there doing AI. So there trying to use that stuff that is in there that was done to make the card for more then making frames in a games, with a driver thing to make the missing frames.
I think it's not only PC Gamers that expect too much, console gamers thought they could go from 1080p/30fps straight to 4k/60fps with just a generation jump. People stil get angry about 30fps games on console, on hardware that is almost 3 years old by now.
console players at least have a good reason. 30fps games are 30fps because the devs targeted that. it was a conscious decision by them. how about target 60 and compromise the graphics a bit if it needs to be done? don't make something the machine can't run properly.
The sweet spot is 27' 2K 165MHz
Regarding the monitor part. It unfortunately varies between regions, some countries expect you to pay for a low end 1080p 144hz monitor between 250-300$. I guess you can imagine how anything above in terms of raw quality or higher specs costs...
I used to play WoW at 5-12 FPS (yes, my pc was that cheap. I paid less than $200 for a premade tower in the early 2000s). I used to relish challenging the people I saw as "whiners" complaining they couldn't play at 40-60 fps.
This year, I built a top-end gaming PC with a 4090 and a i5-13600kf (which i'm about to replace with an i9-14900k despite the very low value for the improvement). I also have a QD-OLED for visuals at 120hz. I tried playing FF16 on the PS5 and boy howdy was that a mistake. It runs like a slideshow on "Quality" and feels unresponsive even on "Performance" mode.
Holy boatloads, the difference between what I used to think was amazing and what I'm used to now is such a massive chasm of experience.
I think those better experience ruin our life😂I still using my 10 years old PC till now with i3 3220 and 750ti, but before i bought the used 750ti, I play GTAV with iGPU with less than 9 fps with everything low, I was ok back then and i actually enjoy it back then, then the used 750ti comes in and i wonder how i'm actually able to enjoy it at less than 10 fps😂😂now i want more and more fps with good visual but could not pull the trigger because every rumors saying next gen is better and the high cost of it😂
Eh, the problem is the hard push on marketing from consoles claiming they do "4k gaming"
If a $450 living room box can do "4k gaming", why can't my $450 gpu handle it???
it does do 4K gaming. Half my PS5 games render at native 4k, albeit at 30fps
80 fps is terrible, need 100+ fps
*Promosm*
I just upgraded from a 60Hz monitor to 60Hz monitor 😅😅
Yeah I'm one of those ppl honestly. If I'm above 60 fps I just turn up the graphics settings lol. I can tell the difference between 60 and 120 it's just not that big of difference to me. people say the same thing about high and ultra settings though so it's just preference imo.
' This is a high refresh rate PC game, you may need to Upgrade your Monitor for this game ' Troll Howard
I have no plans on upgrading my 1080p 75hz monitor. It's a smooth enough experience as it is for me. I'd rather continue being able to max graphic settings at this level rather than dial down settings to get higher fps. Getting a higher refresh monitor and higher resolution means I'll not only need a better gpu but that particular gpu will need to be replaced sooner than later as well in order to maintain the fps to match the refresh rate and settings will have to be dialed down which I'd prefer not to have to do.
that's like buying a mountain top retreat with great vistas but where all windows are bathroom windows. well, you do you.
Hey dudes, great work.
May I translated your content in French please?
People wouldn't mind lower fps if the graphics in new games actually looked next gen. When graphics in "modern" titles like Starfield, Wo Long, Forza Motorsport, Counter Strike 2, etc., look worse than last gen (at best), yet the game still runs poorly on modern hardware, that's when we have a problem.
I am guessing that Steve is around the age of my oldest child and I am sure he gleefully played games at 720p or worse @ 30 fps. Now imagine if technology was frozen at that time and we were playing new games but still @30fps. Corporate greed has caused the populace to require, no, DEMAND ever increasing gains year after year after year. Our consumers many of them wanting instant gratification also demand more, faster, better, year after year. It seems the quest for more will never end. At what point do we become satisfied with what is currently available? Just a thought. I don't much care. I just wonder how far technology will go before it hits a wall.
Resolution has allready hit a wall, 1080p started to be a thing around 2007 and in 2010 I bought my first PC (around 1000€) and it was obivious that I would buy a 1080p monitor with that.
4K started to be a thing around 2014-2015 and almost decade later it is really not an prefered option in 1000€ "budget but cheap new PC" category, but you can somewhat do it with upscaling and lower quality settings. 8K will not become even high end thing in this decade, maybe after that and it will end there, it is literally pointless to increase resolution after that (or even 8K is too much, but you wanna take "one step over the limit") in this because of limitations in human eye.
FPS / Hz will hit a wall soon too. Even 144hz to 240hz is quite small difference, 500hz to 1000hz is most likely completely unnoticiable. 60 to 120 hz was and is HUGE
Next big race will be colour accuracy, black-leves and brightnes. That is allready been going on all the time, 2010 TN-panels were completely carbage on every regard what comes to this. Like if you moved your head a little bit the colors on your screen would shift and the colors were not bright or right even when looking at the display dead on. Like everything was smearry like there were some layer of vaselin on the display. Again after 2015 IPS panels were muchmuchmuch better in like 300-400€ range and now they are ok even in super budget category. There will be point at some not so distant future where every display shows pretty much perfect colors with 178 degree of field of view. That will be some kind of oled or that kind of thing.
Propably same thing will happen with displays that happened with like radios or landline phones when they were perfected. Displays will get increasingly cheap and manufactures will compete in software and "smart features". Because that is the only thing to be competing in.
VR/AR may become a major thing and there is new very long path to take to perfection for manufactures
This is where affordability in one place does not mean affordability elsewhere.... in much of the world 60htz is still the only option for most people with 75htz being luxury that needs to be justified.
but in very low budget you should allways go for used market anyway. One should buy new 1080p@60hz only if you must buy a monitor, there are zero used displays on market in your area and there is just no way you could afford the 144hz display (cheapest 1080p@60hz displays are like 70-80 dollars and it is only like 120-140 dollars for 144hz)
@@lassenikulainen6722 that's very cheap, here the cheapest 1080p@75htz is 185 dollars and for good 144htz you need to double that.
Sitting here moving my mouse on my 60hz refresh monitor trying to detect the massive input lag and I'm like "wtf are you talking about dude?!" lol. I've never known any different. I hope to upgrade my monitor soon to a 49" super ultrawide with 240Hz refresh, so hopefully I'm in for an epiphany.
Why to do it? Whats the point?
@@kostasvapo69 What's the point in being alive? Should we all just kill ourselves?
@@kostasvapo69 why upgrade the screen? you mean your main direct interface with the games you play? to me a good screen should be a priority. it's like tires for car. a godlike car with shit tires will do you no good. same as a godliek pc with a shitty screen.
Even a 75hz monitor is a decent upgrade over a 60hz.
not at all.
@@QubaLG-n1o 25% performance uplift says yes
simple answer is no. my own personal viewpoint is the #1 thing i want them to improve is anti cheat support on linux because... you can lead a horse to water but you cant make them drink. and this has been patchy in particular for multiplayer online games.
and can i just say: that does not necessarily require a lot of effort, when the games already uses some linux compatible anti cheat software. the fact that they just dont bother speaks volumes about the attitude within the games industry.
under 60 fps looks choppy after being used to 170 fps... it just doesn't feel "fun"
Do gamers expect too much from developers and their PC hardware in 2023? sounds like a game dev overworked trying to get a break , much of the time here is from overworked devs , just saying , , , history proves this
YES = sounds like a cry for help
Poor Freddy
do we need to have a billion people hit his site and crash it to let him know we care ?
Because we customers buy more gpus that offer most fps, no matter the quality…
Of all things that could have possibly spoiled me in regards to refresh rate, it was actually my phone; going from 120Hz on my phone to 60Hz on my monitor-prior to upgrading to 240Hz-was noticeable enough that I would have to watch a RUclips video before doing anything else in 60Hz because it was just so jarring. Anyone saying that 60Hz is "fine" has never tried anything else.